Skip to content
Joseph Griffin Jr.
Joseph Griffin Jr.

#1Joseph Griffin Jr.

Joseph Griffin Jr. is a Vertical Threat WR for Massachusetts.

What projects, and what doesn't · WRs · held out 2019-2025

How well one season predicts the next, measured on seasons the model never trained on. 1.00 would be perfectly predictable; 0.00 means last year told us nothing.

  • Usage share (volume)0.47
    Beats guessing the WR average by 16%. n=6,302 WR seasons
  • EPA per play (efficiency)0.09
    Not projectable — we do not forecast this. n=5,767 WR seasons
  • Total EPA (value)0.45
    Beats guessing the WR average by 12%. n=5,767 WR seasons

Across all positions, usage carries year to year at 0.47 and efficiency at 0.07. So Joseph Griffin Jr.'s projection is a projection of opportunity — how much of the offense he runs through. How well he converts it is something this model does not claim to know a year in advance, and the number above is why.

2026 Production

Receiving
5 Receptions120 Rec yards1 Rec TD24.0 Yards/rec
Returns
1 Kick returns8 KR yards0 KR TD

Air yards

Where the ball goes, and how much of the gain is the throw rather than the run after it.

8
Targets
25.5y
Avg depth
4.0y
After catch
63%
Catch rate

The ball travels 25.5 yards in the air on an average target 16.6 yards deeper than the median. Another 4.0 comes after the catch.

Where he is targeted

targets · completion rate · yards
deep
3
67% · 70y
1
0% · 0y
1
100% · 30y
short
1
0% · 0y
1
100% · 19y
1
100% · 1y
leftmiddleright

Depth and direction come from CFBD’s passing detail, which is backfilled after the games: this covers weeks 1–2 only. Spikes, throwaways and intentional grounding are excluded before any average.

Performance Analysis · 2026 · vs WR peers

  • Efficiency100
  • Volume22
  • Explosiveness100
  • Consistency50
  • Pass-Down50
Player type
Vertical Threat WR

Elite deep receiver who stretches the field. Wins downfield, commands safety attention, and creates the threat that opens underneath routes.

Downfield threatYAC upsideCreates space for teammates
Peer percentiles
Opponent-adjusted EPA (WEPA/play)100th %ile · elite
Key findings
  • Top-10% efficiency among WRs — elite opponent-adjusted EPA rate.
  • Limited usage share suggests a rotational or specialist role.
  • Peak game: 0.94 EPA/play in Wk 1 vs Rutgers (SP+ -4).

NIL Market Tier· 2026

On3 valuation ↗
Elite

Top-3 player at position nationally. Collective + national brand deals.

Tier is a model estimate based on position, school brand, performance rank, and usage — not a reported deal. NIL deals are private. For a real market valuation, see On3's NIL profile, which factors in social following and actual deal tracking.

Historical Comparables · WR · efficiency + volume + value

Players from 2013–2025 matched on EPA efficiency, play volume, and adjusted value tier — not just one metric.

PlayerTeamWEPA/playLine valTotal EPA
Quadree HendersonPittsburgh0.5301.633.4
DeAndre HughesAir Force0.4701.328.2
Savion WilliamsTCU0.4501.125.2
Bert Emanuel Jr.Central Michigan0.4601.624.4
Keytaon ThompsonMississippi State0.4601.232.2

Comps are statistical — efficiency, volume, and value tier all factor in. Style and conference context differ.

Game Log · box score + EPA, week by week

+0.9400.94Wk 1 vs Rutgers: +0.94 EPA/play1Wk 2 vs Sacred Heart: +0.63 EPA/play2
EPA per play · x-axis: weekabove 0 = added points · below = lost
WkOpponentResultOpp SP+RecRec YdsAvgRec TDLongEPA/play
1@RutgersW37-21-3.626130.51310.94
2vsSacred HeartW37-1035919.70390.63

Usage & Situational · Pro

Snap-share proxy
Overall
7.6%
Passing plays
21.6%
Rushing plays
0.0%
Standard downs
10.3%
Passing downs
0.0%
EPA by down type
Standard downs
0.79
Passing downs
Pass / Rush EPA
0.79 / —

Usage = share of team plays (CFBD has no true snap counts).

EPA = expected points added (opponent-adjusted). NIL estimates are model-based ranges, not reported deals. Data: CollegeFootballData. Not betting advice.